Schools Helping Kids Get Secret Abortions?

[Coito ergo sum]

On a side note, CES, what would you say of a household where the parents would kick the teenager out if they decided to get an abortion? Does your ethical guideline dictate that the parents are informed? I know many people, coming from a Mormon background, that would do just that.

I don't know how anyone would know in advance whether a household would kick the teenager out if they decided to get an abortion. I also don't know that in New Zealand a family has the right to kick a minor out of the house in New Zealand. In the US, the parents have an obligation to support their minor children until they are 18. I would imagine it's the same in New Zealand.

There are folks who get really mad at the idea of their kids getting tattoos, and some might even kick their kids out of the house I suppose (or want to). Does that vitiate the requirement of parental consent? What about breast implants?

[Ronja]

*sigh*

I'm sorry that I "raised my voice".

Your "tone of voice" can "sound" in a way that you most likely did not intend, even in written text. In this case, you could "sound" less conceited if you e.g. compared the NZ laws with the Florida laws and showed evidence for that a) the Florida laws are closer to your views and b) those Florida laws have effects on schools, teens, families and/or the regional society as a whole that are better (according to some, preferably clearly measurable, criteria) than comparable effects in NZ. The prevalences of teen pregnancies, teen abortions, teens giving up kids for adoption, and school dropouts due to teens keeping their kids - those at least could be comparison criteria.

Thus far you have only re-iterated that the parents' right to parent is more important than the kid's right to privacy, but you have not shown a *rational* base for why this view would be better than the opposite view. The opposition has pointed out that without guaranteed privacy, some - likely even many - of the kids won't talk to school counselors (or school nurses) when the issue is difficult enough or at all. Which would create worse problems, especially in the long run and especially for those kids who would most need the help a counselor or nurse can give and arrange.

So what *good* would come from letting parents' rights trump kids' rights - apart from (some) parents feeling better about it?

BTW: I would feel considerably worse if kids did not have patient privacy rights in Finland, and this is relevant, at least anecdotally, as I have two pre-teen daughters. So at least one parent exists, who would be horrified, if school counselors, doctors, nurses etc. were legally allowed or required to break patient confidentiality.

[Seth]

*sigh*

I'm sorry that I "raised my voice".

Your "tone of voice" can "sound" in a way that you most likely did not intend, even in written text. In this case, you could "sound" less conceited if you e.g. compared the NZ laws with the Florida laws and showed evidence for that a) the Florida laws are closer to your views and b) those Florida laws have effects on schools, teens, families and/or the regional society as a whole that are better (according to some, preferably clearly measurable, criteria) than comparable effects in NZ. The prevalences of teen pregnancies, teen abortions, teens giving up kids for adoption, and school dropouts due to teens keeping their kids - those at least could be comparison criteria.

Thus far you have only re-iterated that the parents' right to parent is more important than the kid's right to privacy, but you have not shown a *rational* base for why this view would be better than the opposite view. The opposition has pointed out that without guaranteed privacy, some - likely even many - of the kids won't talk to school counselors (or school nurses) when the issue is difficult enough or at all. Which would create worse problems, especially in the long run and especially for those kids who would most need the help a counselor or nurse can give and arrange.

So what *good* would come from letting parents' rights trump kids' rights - apart from (some) parents feeling better about it?

BTW: I would feel considerably worse if kids did not have patient privacy rights in Finland, and this is relevant, at least anecdotally, as I have two pre-teen daughters. So at least one parent exists, who would be horrified, if school counselors, doctors, nurses etc. were legally allowed or required to break patient confidentiality.

You need to distinguish between "confidentiality" and "material assistance" and even "subtle coercion."

The health law says that school counselors must maintain confidentiality if the student mentions pregnancy or a desire to obtain an abortion, but you have cited no statute or precedent (nor did the article) that authorizes counselors to aid, abet or assist a student to obtain an abortion.

That is the point of the article. Not whether the student can lawfully obtain an abortion on her own, and not whether a counselor must keep the student's pregnancy confidential, but whether the counselor may take action beyond counseling the student to help her obtain an abortion without the parent's consent to THAT ASSISTANCE.

And should school counselors be counseling students on getting abortions AT ALL? Does this not run the risk of subtle coercion either for or against abortion depending on the political view of the counselor? Should there not be strict guidelines about what counselors may say or do for pregnant students, in order to prevent students from being swayed one way or another?

I'd like to know if there is a law which allows counselors to provide material assistance in obtaining an abortion or not.

[Seth]

So what *good* would come from letting parents' rights trump kids' rights - apart from (some) parents feeling better about it?

Perhaps that parents have better judgment about their children's bodies, emotional health, physical health, and future than the children do because they are adults and the parents of the child? Or are you as open-minded about kids being able to make rational, well-informed decisions about having sex in the first place as you are about their reasoning abilities regarding having an abortion, which may scar them for life and might even cause them to commit suicide or go insane out of guilt and regret...as has happened no small number of times to women who have had abortions (both children and adults)?

If you believe that a child's "rights" to make such important decisions without any consultation with their parents are so vastly superior to the right of a parent to parent their child, then presumably you have no objection to the "right" of a child to decide to have sex with a teacher.

[Coito ergo sum]

*sigh*

I'm sorry that I "raised my voice".

Your "tone of voice" can "sound" in a way that you most likely did not intend, even in written text. In this case, you could "sound" less conceited if you e.g. compared the NZ laws with the Florida laws and showed evidence for that a) the Florida laws are closer to your views and b) those Florida laws have effects on schools, teens, families and/or the regional society as a whole that are better (according to some, preferably clearly measurable, criteria) than comparable effects in NZ. The prevalences of teen pregnancies, teen abortions, teens giving up kids for adoption, and school dropouts due to teens keeping their kids - those at least could be comparison criteria.

How in the world does that have anything to do with conceit? We've been discussing this issue in general, as a general proposition, since it began. I don't need to compare the NZ laws, because I wasn't trying to make the argument that Florida had better laws than New Zealand. Florida has similar issues relative to confidentiality and abortion these days, however, as that is a very common issue. That's why I posted the article, because even though it's in New Zealand, it is a very common issue.

Thus far you have only re-iterated that the parents' right to parent is more important than the kid's right to privacy,

I haven't, at all. I never iterated that, let alone reiterated it.

but you have not shown a *rational* base for why this view would be better than the opposite view.

I think I have. i've explained the roles of parents as legal guardians, the fact that parents general make medical decisions for minors, the fact that parents have legal duties and rights associated with the care and upbringing of minors, and the fact that there are generally exceptions to confidentiality laws which allow parents to know what's going on with their minor children, among other things.

The opposition has pointed out that without guaranteed privacy, some - likely even many - of the kids won't talk to school counselors (or school nurses) when the issue is difficult enough or at all. Which would create worse problems, especially in the long run and especially for those kids who would most need the help a counselor or nurse can give and arrange.

And, that's the opposite argument. Am I required to agree that they are correct? Why aren't they required to make propitiations toward me and why aren't they required to honor my arguments? Nobody is going out of their way to give me props for my argument - they're disagreeing with me - vigorously - why am I not, in your view, entitled to do the same?

So what *good* would come from letting parents' rights trump kids' rights - apart from (some) parents feeling better about it?

I haven't suggested that any rights "trump" the other. I've only suggested the parents who are legal guardian to the minor child, and who have a fundamental parental duty to care for the child and well as the concomitant right to make decisions in relation to that care, ought to be informed about serious medical issues. And, I've already explained what good would come of it, and it had nothing to do with parents feelings. I never brought up anything about the feelings of the parents as being the justification, although I certainly understand their feelings. The good that would come of it would include the parents being able to perform their duties as parents, and to take care of their minor child as they are legally obligated to do. They can also see that the minor child is instructed and counseled in the way the parents think is the right way, and not the way some jamoke school counselor thinks is appropriate.

BTW: I would feel considerably worse if kids did not have patient privacy rights in Finland, and this is relevant, at least anecdotally, as I have two pre-teen daughters. So at least one parent exists, who would be horrified, if school counselors, doctors, nurses etc. were legally allowed or required to break patient confidentiality.

Counselors don't have "patients," and they aren't doctors. The physician patient privilege is quite different. A school counselor is a person of no great education or experience. When you go to the doctor with your children, do you expect the doctor to tell you what is wrong with your child? Or, do you expect that if the child said "I'm afraid I might get in trouble," that the doctor would simply tell you that it was doctor-patient privilege and you'll need to go get a court order to find out what's wrong with your child? I doubt your answer to that is that you would want patient-doctor confidentiality respected. You'd want there to be an exception whereby you can know the diagnosis, and prognosis, etc., so that you, the legal guardian of your child, could make the medical decision for her. That's what I guess. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Geoff]

...A school counselor is a person of no great education or experience.

[citation needed], as lp would say.

Not sure about NZ, but certainly in the UK they have to be either a BABCP* registered psychotherapist or counselling psychologist. In most cases that involves at least a 2-year full time course, plus practical experience in a relevant occupation. I suspect NZ will be similar.




*EDIT: "British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies"

[maiforpeace]

A school counselor is a person of no great education or experience.

I expect the qualifications for a school counselor in New Zealand is just as, if not higher than in the US.

In the USA, a school counselor is a certified educator with a master's degree in school counseling (usually from a Counselor Education graduate program) with school counseling graduate training including qualifications and skills to address all students’ academic, career, college access and personal/social needs.
About half of all Counselor Education programs that offer school counseling are accredited by the Council on the Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) and all are in the USA with one in Canada and one under review in Mexico as of 2010. CACREP maintains a current list of accredited programs and programs in the accreditation process on their website.[64] CACREP desires to accredit more international counseling university programs.[64]
According to CACREP, an accredited school counseling program offers coursework in Professional Identity and Ethics, Human Development, Counseling Theories, Group Work, Career Counseling, Multicultural Counseling, Assessment, Research and Program Evaluation, and Clinical Coursework—a 100-hour practicum and a 600-hour internship under supervision of a school counseling faculty member and a certified school counselor site supervisor (CACREP,[65] 2001).
When CACREP released the 2009 Standards, the accreditation process became performance-based including evidence of school counselor candidate learning outcomes. In addition, CACREP tightened the school counseling standards with specific evidence needed for how school counseling students receive education in foundations; counseling prevention and intervention; diversity and advocacy; assessment; research and evaluation; academic development; collaboration and consultation; and leadership in K-12 school counseling contexts.[66]
Certification practices for school counselors vary around the world. School counselors in the USA may opt for national certification through two different boards. The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) requires a two-to-three year process of performance based assessment, and demonstrate (in writing) content knowledge in human growth/development, diverse populations, school counseling programs, theories, data, and change and collaboration.[67] As of February, 2005, 30 states offer financial incentives for this certification.
Also in the USA, The National Board for Certified Counselors (NBCC) requires passing the National Certified School Counselor Examination (NCSC), including 40 multiple choice questions and seven simulated cases assessing school counselors' abilities to make critical decisions. Additionally, a master's degree and three years of supervised experience are required. NBPTS also requires three years of experience, however a master's degree is not required, but only state certification (41 of 50 states require a master's degree). At least four states offer financial incentives for the NCSC certification.[68] Both certifications have benefits and costs that a school counselor would want to consider for national certification.[69] NBCC credentials counselors in the United States[70] and internationally.[71]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_counselor

[charlou]

This is a good discussion with interesting points raised for and against. I can actually see pros and cons for both sides of the argument and consider this a dilemma for which there is no objectively "right" answer, and for which various laws regarding rights and responsibilities may be in conflict. I certainly agree that in most cases a sixteen year old girl is capable of making an informed decision about who she wants to confide in, and what will happen with her own body, and do so without parental involvement if that's her choice. For younger people, though, the latter is very much debatable ... the younger a person is, the more debatable it becomes (very much like the debate about at which age a person should be considered capable of making a decision to have sex). At the very least, parents are legally and therefore considered morally responsible for their child's welfare and therefore need to be aware what has happened to their child in order to take care of their child, physically and emotionally ... In the case of abortion, aftercare is important.

[Cunt]

I think deciding to undergo an abortion or deliver a child is an adult decision. If someone is making it, about their own body, I think it is well worthwhile to leave it in their hands. Even to the point of legislating parental consent out of the equation.

Coito, who should decide whether you may evict someone from your body?

[Ronja]

If my kid chooses to go to a doctor (or any other health care or social services professional, which in Finland includes school counselors) without me, or asks me to wait outside the actual examination/appointment room, I would be outraged if the professional(s) involved would breach her confidence or forcefully question her decision. If she is old enough to manage making the appointment, she is old enough to decide who among her near and dear is welcome into the care process and how.

A gentle "Are you sure?" from the professional(s) at the beginning of the proceedings could IMO be OK, and a thorough talk about all possible sources of support that the kid has or that can be arranged - if the diagnose is serious enough - at the end. However, the thought of anything more forceful than that from the professionals towards the kid patient/client makes me seriously uncomfortable.

[pErvinalia]

Do you really believe that at age 16 the parents still have the right to decide upon medical procedures of such profound importance. What if the parents oppose abortion and had the right to force the young lady to have a baby against her wishes? Does that respect her right to sovereignity over her body and life? When it comes to sex and abortion - once the body is old enough to conceive, the "child" (which I wouldn't actually call a 16 year old) needs to have rights into decisions made about her body.

I agree with your points here. But I think that while ever a person has a legal guardian under law, that guardian has a right to know about any procedures affecting their kid. That's not to say they should be able to force a girl to have a child, but they should be informed of what is going on.

[Ronja]

Good, thoughtful analysis, charlou. The ages between, say 12 and 16 are indeed a difficult grey area: some kids are almost unbelievably mature already at 13 and some are quite childish/naive still at 17. I hope that the required education for school doctors, nurses, psychologist and counselors is solid enough so they can analyze what are a good solutions for support to recommend in each individual case (and not just about abortions, either). When I was in nursing school, we did go through quite a few ethics "cases" and the law related to them.

To elaborate a bit more on my own stance: As a parent I hope with all my being that my kids would always feel that they can confide in me, and that I can support them with whatever life throws at them. But I would not want the right to decide about that to be taken from them, if they are mature enough to understand their own health situation - and the assessment of that will have to be the involved professional(s) responsibility, that's one of the many things that they are trained to do.

[Coito ergo sum]

A school counselor is a person of no great education or experience.

I expect the qualifications for a school counselor in New Zealand is just as, if not higher than in the US.

In the USA, a school counselor is a certified educator with a master's degree in school counseling (usually from a Counselor Education graduate program) with school counseling graduate training including qualifications and skills to address all students’ academic, career, college access and personal/social needs.
About half of all Counselor Education programs that offer school counseling are accredited by the Council on the Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) and all are in the USA with one in Canada and one under review in Mexico as of 2010. CACREP maintains a current list of accredited programs and programs in the accreditation process on their website.[64] CACREP desires to accredit more international counseling university programs.[64]
According to CACREP, an accredited school counseling program offers coursework in Professional Identity and Ethics, Human Development, Counseling Theories, Group Work, Career Counseling, Multicultural Counseling, Assessment, Research and Program Evaluation, and Clinical Coursework—a 100-hour practicum and a 600-hour internship under supervision of a school counseling faculty member and a certified school counselor site supervisor (CACREP,[65] 2001).
When CACREP released the 2009 Standards, the accreditation process became performance-based including evidence of school counselor candidate learning outcomes. In addition, CACREP tightened the school counseling standards with specific evidence needed for how school counseling students receive education in foundations; counseling prevention and intervention; diversity and advocacy; assessment; research and evaluation; academic development; collaboration and consultation; and leadership in K-12 school counseling contexts.[66]
Certification practices for school counselors vary around the world. School counselors in the USA may opt for national certification through two different boards. The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) requires a two-to-three year process of performance based assessment, and demonstrate (in writing) content knowledge in human growth/development, diverse populations, school counseling programs, theories, data, and change and collaboration.[67] As of February, 2005, 30 states offer financial incentives for this certification.
Also in the USA, The National Board for Certified Counselors (NBCC) requires passing the National Certified School Counselor Examination (NCSC), including 40 multiple choice questions and seven simulated cases assessing school counselors' abilities to make critical decisions. Additionally, a master's degree and three years of supervised experience are required. NBPTS also requires three years of experience, however a master's degree is not required, but only state certification (41 of 50 states require a master's degree). At least four states offer financial incentives for the NCSC certification.[68] Both certifications have benefits and costs that a school counselor would want to consider for national certification.[69] NBCC credentials counselors in the United States[70] and internationally.[71]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_counselor

All that sounds great, but the reality is that they aren't particularly good at counseling or advising, which is their job. They get their degrees through the "education" programs at colleges, which are cupcake degree programs, and everybody knows it. They tend not to be clinical psychologists and certainly not psychiatrists. Having a master's degree is nice, but the question is a masters degree in what, exactly?

A school counselor is not normally trained in adolescent psychology or in psychotherapy, or to provide general psychological treatment or care to students. Unless New Zealand is very different in this regard, and from my googles I don't think it is, their job is to guide and help children and adolescents to structure their educational programs and determine career or vocational directions. If you have a masters degree in that sort of thing (e.g. Masters in Counselor Education/Guidance), that doesn't mean you have the education and experience necessary to be advising and counseling children on issues like pregnancy and abortion.

A school counselor is not an on-site psychologist.

[Coito ergo sum]

This is a good discussion with interesting points raised for and against. I can actually see pros and cons for both sides of the argument and consider this a dilemma for which there is no objectively "right" answer, and for which various laws regarding rights and responsibilities may be in conflict. I certainly agree that in most cases a sixteen year old girl is capable of making an informed decision about who she wants to confide in, and what will happen with her own body, and do so without parental involvement if that's her choice. For younger people, though, the latter is very much debatable ... the younger a person is, the more debatable it becomes (very much like the debate about at which age a person should be considered capable of making a decision to have sex). At the very least, parents are legally and therefore considered morally responsible for their child's welfare and therefore need to be aware what has happened to their child in order to take care of their child, physically and emotionally ... In the case of abortion, aftercare is important.

Agree 100%.

A key point is the 16 year old making an "informed" decision. And, part of my point is that some school guidance counselor ought not be making the decision as to what the kid needs to be informed about. I wouldn't want some Jesus freak counselor advising my daughter without my input, and by the same token, I don't want someone of the complete opposite ilk thinking my parental input is unnecessary because my daughter would rather I didn't find out. When a 16 year old gets a C or a D in class, they don't want their parents to find out, if they can help it. Of course they don't want their parents to find out that they're having sex and getting pregnant. However, what the 16 year old says she wants and what she needs is two different things, and a 16 year old is still a minor.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think deciding to undergo an abortion or deliver a child is an adult decision. If someone is making it, about their own body, I think it is well worthwhile to leave it in their hands. Even to the point of legislating parental consent out of the equation.

Coito, who should decide whether you may evict someone from your body?

I'm prochoice. I haven't said a 16 year old ought not have the choice to get an abortion.